Skip to Main Content

Speech Code Policy

Introduction

We think it best for a speech code to be concise enough to include in a student handbook so that it will actually be read, and clear enough that it can be easily understood. Our purpose should not be to confuse or ensnare the unwary but to guide community members to better conduct. Sanctions should be held in reserve and employed only as a last resort.

By way of explanation, we intend to make it clear that uninhibited speech and debate should be the norm on a college campus. Exceptions should be few, narrow and relatively clearly defined so that potential speakers are given fair notice of what is tolerated and what is not. In addition, we want to confine the discretion of enforcing authorities who are equally subject to human misjudgments.

Vague or overly inclusive definitions of prohibited speech are an invitation to selective enforcement. Exceptions should be justified as a sort of Roberts Rules of the public forum and only as necessary to maintain order, to protect the rights of others, or as necessary to further the institutional mission.

We have described nine categories of behavior that are over the line. The first two are, to use some first amendment jargon, “content-neutral” in that the prohibition is not based on what is said, but rather objects to disruptive or invasive conduct. We include them here because such disruptions or invasions are frequently accomplished by speaking, but the objection would apply equally well to simple noise or physical blockage. Even in a public institution (like UVM or Castleton State), these would raise no first amendment issue in the absence of evidence of selective enforcement.

We also preserve the special status of the Chapel as a place of worship.

The next seven categories are content-defined and so touch directly on free expression. All but the last one closely tracks accepted first amendment theory that recognizes that some speech may be subject to sanction because, 1) it does not meaningfully convey ideas or contribute to public debate, and 2) the words are harmful by their very utterance, i.e., no esoteric or eccentric interpretation is required to understand their immediately harmful impact. A good way to understand this is to ask, does the utterance convey a contestable proposition and do the circumstances permit refinement or correction of that proposition through further speech? (One exception—for defamation we do not distinguish between public and private figures, a distinction we think unnecessary outside of a lawsuit and unworkable in a small community like SMC.)

Only in the last category of prohibited expression—hate speech—do we substantially depart from first amendment doctrine and go in another direction. Under the first amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear that hate speech can be punished only if it also takes the form of harassment, true threat, fighting words or incitement. Most democracies are not so tolerant.

Compelling arguments can be made on both sides of the question. We are comfortable restricting such expressions at SMC because, 1) the College is a private institution and so not bound by the first amendment, 2) SMC is a smaller and more intimate community than the United States, and 3) unlike the liberal state, the College has a moral foundation—“to contribute through higher education to the enhancement of the human person and the advancement of human culture in light of the Catholic faith” and “to encourage the development of an empathetic understanding and respect for the differing views of others derived from their history, status or unique philosophical or religious belief” in which ”the dignity of each person needs to be acknowledged.” These require curtailment of certain kinds of expression. We seek to lessen the obvious tension here by restricting the protected classes of persons to named ascriptive groups, those individuals do not choose to join (with one exception) but usually find themselves born into and from which they cannot easily depart, and which are understood to be historical victims of exclusion or victimization.

Finally, we include a disclaimer meant to protect existing rules of confidentiality.

Freedom of Expression and Civility

Saint Michael’s College is dedicated to the promotion of education in the liberal arts and sciences in light of the Catholic intellectual tradition and in service to humanity. Towards this end, the College will seek to encourage the exploration of all subjects and to foster dialogue among all points of view. This means the College will be protective of free expression that cultivates an open and critical exchange of ideas and opinions among faculty, staff and students. At the same time, the College recognizes the need to foster a community built upon civility and mutual respect for all persons, including those of diverse backgrounds, identities and belief systems. It is critical that all members of the community are included in this mission on the basis of equality and perceive that they are included on the basis of equality. Of necessity, these goals require some restraint on the kinds of expression the College will tolerate. It will be the responsibility of groups that sponsor outside speakers to take reasonable steps to ensure that guests are in compliance with this speech code.

In the Classroom or other Learning Spaces

(Including the library, lecture halls and theatre)

Speech or actions that are disruptive of the educational process to which the space has been dedicated, including efforts to silence the expression of others or to block access to events, are an affront to the very purpose of an academic community as well as a violation of the rights of students, faculty and staff will not be tolerated.

In the Chapel

The Chapel is a place of learning, listening, reverent silence, and of speech, but it is first and foremost a place of worship according to the tenets of the Catholic Church. While secular events are from time to time presented in the Chapel, it should be understood that all expression there should support and conform to its primary purpose, facilitating theocentric encounter, always commensurate with the Catholic faith, and secondarily be compatible with other theocentric faith traditions.

In Residences

Students have a privacy right of seclusion and protection from unwanted speech in their residences, as citizens have in their living spaces. Behavior or targeted speech that invades this privacy interest will not be tolerated.

Protection of privacy or academic functions, as well as public safety, may require some reasonable regulation of the time, place or manner of such speech-enhancing conduct as protests, rallies, marches, or the hanging of signs or banners. Such regulation will be applied in an ideologically neutral fashion. Department of Public Safety regulations will be observed at all times.

In the Public Spaces

The College values the free expression of ideas, even recognizing that expression may at times be vehement or unpleasant. Free discussion of ideas should be uninhibited, robust, and wide- open to the greatest degree compatible with the needs of a civil community. Nonetheless, certain forms of expression that do not contribute in any meaningful way to the exchange of ideas and that are injurious by their very utterance should have no place on the Saint Michael’s College campus.

Expression that is not tolerated will be exceptional, but will include communication through, for example, words, gestures, displays, images, symbols, skits or costumes taking any of the following forms:

  • Incitement to Illegal Conduct—including statements that urge or instruct unlawful conduct, in a context where such conduct is likely to follow.

  • Obscenity—including explicit sexual depictions that, when judged by the average member of the community, evaluating the dominant theme of the work when taken as a whole, are found to appeal to a prurient interest in sex; and are found to be patently offensive in that they far exceed community standards of decency and candor in discussing sexual matters; and are found to lack serious political, artistic, scientific, or literary value.

  • Defamation—including untrue statements intended to undermine or have the effect of undermining another person’s reputation for good character, when delivered to third persons.

  • True Threat—including statements that seek to intimidate or to cause fear of imminent physical harm, communicated to their targeted victim.

  • Harassment—including a pattern of unwanted and intrusive expression that persists regardless of the target’s stated objections.

  • Fighting Words—including personally insulting statements directed at an individual or small group that risk provoking a violent response or breach of the peace.

  • Hate Speech—including expression that vilifies, intimidates, disparages or diminishes individuals on the basis of the following ascriptive group affiliations, creating a hostile learning or working environment:

    • Race/color/ancestry/national origin/place of birth

    • Age

    • Religion

    • Sex, gender, or gender identity

    • Sexual orientation

    • Disability or HIV-positive test result status

    • Veteran or military service status

This provision will not limit in any way classroom-related academic discussions of history, literature, art, philosophy, natural or social science.

Confidentiality

The normal functions of a college frequently include communications of a confidential nature regarding matters such as student academic records, disciplinary proceedings, letters of recommendation, employment records, medical records, etc. Nothing in the statement shall be deemed to alter any existing confidentiality practices.